Donaghe

MEMORANDUM **

Sam W. Donaghe, a pretrial detainee at Washington’s Special Commitment Center (“SCC”), appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his SCC records contain inaccurate and unverified information, and that this erroneous information has been used to establish probable cause for his involuntary detention as a sexually violent predator. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.

The district court correctly granted summary judgment for the defendants because a favorable judgment on Donaghe’s section 1983 claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his detention. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th Cir.1997) (plaintiffs section 1983 action must be dismissed when it “necessarily implicates the validity of his continuing confinement”). Donaghe must present these claims in his state court civil commitment proceedings and, if necessary, through a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

We reject Donaghe’s contention that Heck does…